For the first time since 1978, a House committee has voted out a bill, H. R. 6570 (the "Protect Liberty Act"), that would actually protect Americans against government surveillance - not all of it, but a good piece of it. It would require a warrant by default for government queries of the NSA's database for U. S. persons, AND prevent the government from buying its way around the Fourth by getting your data from data brokers. It's going to be brought up for a vote next Monday (or perhaps Tuesday). That gives us - and the other orgs helping - ONE DAY to call over 400 offices, and figure out who's voting YES or NO on our bill, and also on the bill we need to kill at the same time.

See, the Protect Liberty Act will be being brought to the floor along with a competing bill, H. R. 6611, from the Intelligence Committee, which would substantially expand government surveillance, but which is being falsely presented by intelligence community defenders as partially reforming it. The easy thing for Members to do will be to once again be suckered in by the intelligence community, and to vote YES on both. Surveillance hawks, on the other hand, who know what's up, will vote YES on their bill and NO on ours - which would mean that their bill, not ours, will win.

So I'm pulling out all the stops today, contacting everyone I can, to get them to make calls to offices, find out how they intend to vote, and mark that information in a spreadsheet. If you're up for making a few calls - and I really hope you are! - please upvote this post, and I'll give you key information.

Restore The Fourth has come a long way in ten years. This is far ahead of where we thought we could get. Just getting to this vote on the House floor has been a marathon. But today, we need to sprint.

If you have questions, feel free to ask them below!

Today, Senators Wyden, Lee, and Reps. Lofgren, and Davidson introduced the Government Surveillance Reform Act (GSRA). This is a blockbuster piece of legislation that, if passed, would systemically reform Section 702 of FISA, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), surveillance conducted Executive Order 12333, and much, much more. It even tackles vehicular surveillance and cell-site simulators (aka "stingrays"). It is the most comprehensive piece of privacy legislation introduced in the last decade.

Here's the full text of the bill: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/government_surveillance_reform_act_of_2023_bill_text.pdf

Restore the Fourth will be putting out a series on our website soon that explains GSRA's provisions in a digestible and accessible way. Look out for that soon! (https://restorethe4th.com/)

Some major reports have come out recently on "education technology" (edtech), a term that encompasses the latest surveillance technology implemented in schools. They promise safety for both students and teachers. However, these reports find that edtech does not make schools safer. Edtech filters and blocks internet content that is important for students to access and collects copious amounts of data on them in the process.

Off Task: EdTech Threats to Student Privacy and Equity in the Age of AI by CDT: https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/091923-CDT-Off-Task-web.pdf

A report from The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) on educational data and technology (edtech): “The research focuses on student privacy concerns and schools’ capacity to address them; emerging uses of AI-driven technology such as predictive analytics; and deep dives into content filtering and blocking, student activity monitoring, and generative AI, encompassing both well-established and emerging technology.” Content blocking and filtering presents a host of problems – it bars students from accessing important information, blocks students from accessing content related to LGBTQI+ and racial issues and leads to unfair and unjust disciplinary actions disproportionately targeted at students from minority groups.

See also…

New ACLU Report Shines Light on Shadowy EdTech Surveillance Industry by Chad Marlow: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/new-aclu-report-shines-light-on-shadowy-edtech-surveillance-industry-and-the-dangerous-consequences-of-surveillance-in-schools

A new report from the ACLU on the edtech surveillance industry: “While buying these EdTech Surveillance products may make school districts feel safer, the reality is they do not keep students safe. In fact, student surveillance is not only ineffective as a safety measure, but it often harms students in the process and precludes schools from implementing more proven interventions.”

On Friday, our Boston area volunteers turned out to testify at a hearing where the City Council was considering whether to accept $3.4m in previously rejected funding for the Boston Regional Intelligence Center.

After two hours of obfuscation from BRIC officials, there was explosive public testimony from filmmakers Lauren Pespisa and Rod Webber, who were targeted and harassed by white supremacist BRIC officer Andrew Creed, on the basis of a tip from a Proud Boy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YwjzSbWf1k

Local resident Will Justice, who was cleared of a charge of armed robbery, spoke about BRIC circulating alerts to local police after he was acquitted to be on the watch for him, which has led to his being stopped, pulled over and harassed and losing employment opportunities.

Mickey Metts, technologist and free software advocate, testified about how BRIC targets Boston's "poorest neighborhoods with surveillance and isolation. Small things add up and create an atmosphere of unrest so police may respond with violence."

If you'd like to join this fight, email digitalfourth@protonmail.com.

​

Byline: Johana Bhuiyan:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/26/revealed-ice-bi-inc-migrants-more-data-collection

Through a FOIA request, advocacy groups obtained documents revealing that ICE has collected data on migrants through “smartphone apps, ankle monitors and smartwatches” for up to 75 years. Previously, ICE stated that it only collected location data, however these documents show that biometrics are also collected. This data collection falls under the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP). Read Just Futures Law’s fact sheet for more information.

Relatedly, on the private company that helps ICE conduct its mass surveillance:

How a private company (BI Inc.) helps ICE track migrants’ every move by Tonya Riley: https://cyberscoop.com/ice-bi-smartlink/

Byline: Maggie MacFarland Phillips:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2023/09/26/just_the_facts_on_geofencing_the_intrusive_app-based_dragnet_that_sgt_joe_friday_never_dreamed_of_981539.html

An article on the geofence surveillance conducted on Calvary Chapel in 2020. The church is suing Santa Clara County for using location data obtained from a private broker to conduct surveillance related to COVID-19 restrictions.

“We are in the space between the emergence of this technological practice and courts having ruled on its constitutionality…There is a very significant debate right now whether it is possible for a geofence warrant to meet the Fourth Amendment burden of particularity.”

Probably nothing - because the government has a policy of not disclosing it to defendants, and a practice of "parallel construction" to hide their surveillance from being challenged in court.

https://www.justsecurity.org/88861/concealing-surveillance-the-governments-disappearing-section-702-notices/

We've been anticipating this for awhile - the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) put out their report on FISA Section 702. It contains a lot of what we and our coalition members have been saying: we need individualized judicial permission to access 702 communications, stricter declassification deadlines for FISC opinions, and improvement in the operation of FISC. And, of course, requiring the government to obtain a warrant to access Americans' communications.

PCLOB Statement

This coming Friday, Sep. 29, at 10am, there is expected to be a meeting of Boston City Council's Public Safety Committee, to consider four years' worth of backed-up state grants, or $3.4 million, for the Boston Regional Intelligence Center that the City Council has rightly refused to accept. These vague grants are used for surveillance without reasonable suspicion of Boston area residents - everything from a racist gang database to a stingray device.

https://warrantless.org/2023/09/action-alert-email-boston-city-council/

Here's RT4's issue brief on fusion centers:

https://restorethe4th.com/issues/fusion_centers/

If you're in Boston, write to your City Councilor, or sign up to testify at this public meeting.

Let's get police spies out of our lives and out of our stuff! Restore The Fourth!

Welcome to our new RT4 chapter in Tallahassee, FL!

https://rt4tallahassee.substack.com/p/restore-the-4th-tallahassee

There's a whole stack of surveillance and privacy issues to work on in the Tallahassee area (which we're defining as Leon and Gadsden counties). If you're local, please consider getting involved, by contacting interim RT4 Tallahassee Chair Edward Hood, at rt4tallahassee@proton.me.

RT4 has been supporting Ofc. Baimadajie Angwang, who was falsely accused of being an agent for the Chinese government.

Case details here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/10/nyregion/nypd-officer-spying-china-charges-dropped.html

Though all charges against him were dropped, NYPD is still trying to fire him. His administrative trial is 10am Tuesday. If you're in NYC, please join other supporters in the courtroom, getting there ideally at around 9am, so he knows he's not alone in his fight for justice.

Location:

4th floor, Departmental Trial Room A, 1 Police Plaza, New York, NY 10038

The “Registration Requirement” went into effect in 2019. We fought against it, under both Trump and Biden. It requires people applying for visas to register their social media accounts with the U.S. government as part of the application process. In a case challenging this requirement on First Amendment grounds, Doc Society v. Blinken, a federal judge dismissed the case and rejected the argument that foreign national visa applicants have any First Amendment rights when initially applying for visas.

There are clear privacy and surveillance issues here that the plaintiffs did not ground their argument in. But we also fundamentally disagree with the position that US residents who leave the country, having lived here and developed substantial voluntary connections to the United States, and then apply for a visa for re-entry (as they sometimes must do), lose their entitlement to claim the protection of the First Amendment as soon as they leave the United States.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/federal-judge-upholds-state-department-rule-requiring-visa-applicants-disclose

​